I hate to break this to you Doomgaze, if Hawking's argument is what I've heard, it would prove creation. (as I've said with the assumption of general relativity which has been tested extensively and will continue to be) Saying, microevolution is the same thing as macroevolution just on a smaller scale is what we creationists disagree with. Small changes are one thing, changing into an entire different species is another. As one evolutionist so perfectly put it, "if colds can evolve, so can we", I am not going to assume that even most of the people in support of evolution are like that, but it still is an argument similar to the micro-evolution implies macro-evolution argument. Personally, I think the enough time and macro-evolution will happen by a series of micro-evolutions argument is very weak because has not been observed (we haven't seen any partly evolved beings, which we would see if it was that slow) as a result, evolution is simply based on faith not science. Last thing, the principles of evolution are based on things evolving (getting better), would you come up with some examples of good mutations or are we supposedly at the top of the evolutionary chain.Anyway. Basically, the arguement against evolution is that Yes, microevolution exists, but I am incapable of comprehending the vastness of time, so macroevolution does not exist. Besides, even if you were somehow able to disprove evolution, it wouldn't make the fairy tale about an invisible man creating mankind any more true.
Not Gravity though, that is why it remains a law. (it has been tested, so it is a law until proven otherwise.) Most likely if gravity is found to not be true in all cases, the law will just be modified, because it has made it through all the tests so far.Most of Newton's theories have beem disproven, actually
